[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Modeling a magnifier
----------
From: John H. Couture [SMTP:couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 1998 12:28 PM
To: Tesla List
Subject: Re: Modeling a magnifier
Richard -
Thank you for the results from the tests you made on comparing the
magnifier with the classical coil. The results were a 4 foot spark with the
magnifier and a 2 foot spark with the classical coil using the same 1 KW
input. However, as you mentioned there was a lot of flashing with the
classical coil which would indicate the 2 foot spark would be longer without
the flashing. Unfortunately this leaves the results in doubt. It appears
you are the only person who has made these types of tests so more testing
will have to be done.
I agree that the magnifier and classical coil are two completely different
systems. For comparison tests both systems should be built and optimized to
give their best performance. Only the input watts and spark length are of
interest. However, the same power transformer should be used for both tests
and operated under the same conditions. Also, the spark should be a
continuous (controlled) spark to conform with the continuous input watts.
Hopefully you or someone else will find the time to build the coils and
make these tests. It would be interesting to try coils with inputs of 1, 5,
and 10 KW. Tesla coils become less efficient with larger coils so the 10 KW
comparison should show a bigger difference in spark length than the smaller
coils provided there is a difference.
John Couture
-----------------------------------------------------------------
At 08:29 PM 2/24/98 -0600, you wrote:
>
>----------
>From: richard hull [SMTP:rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net]
>Sent: Monday, February 23, 1998 7:56 PM
>To: Tesla List
>Subject: Re: Modeling a magnifier
>
>At 07:26 PM 2/23/98 -0600, you wrote:
>>
>>----------
>>From: John H. Couture [SMTP:couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net]
>>Sent: Monday, February 23, 1998 6:45 PM
>>To: Tesla List
>>Subject: Re: Modeling a magnifier
>>
>>
>> Richard, All -
>>
>> I agree that the doing is important. Have you made comparison tests
>>between the classical coil and magnifier? If so, what were the results?
>>
>> John Couture
>
>
>We assembled two different systems which equivalent systems.
>
>One was tightly coupled (k~.5) and one moderately coupled (for a maggey) K~.36.
>
>In all cases the same series gap was used. The key was found in different
>geometries!
>
>An 18" resonator coil was cut in half and one half was isolated and coupled
>by itself to .36 with a primary and the other half set up as a resonator 4
>feet away. The performed OK with this split setup, but was not stunning.
>Next, the resonator was set atop the driver secondary, otherwise, nothing
>was changed. The coupling was now measured as .22 with the whole resonator
>as a two coil system. When fired, the spark length was reduced by about 25%.
>
>This is why most Tesla folks who really think that the magnifier is just
>three coils are doomed to failure.
>
>The second system was of a more magnifier geometry with separately wound coils.
>The driver was 12" in diameter wound with #14 wire (1.1mh) and 6" tall with
>a coupling of K=.5 with the primary. The resonator was a 12" tall 2"
>diameter item with #32 wire. (~14mh). We toploaded the small coil with a
>20X5 toroid.
>
>This test system was tough to feed the same power to in both modes of
>operation and problems developed with coupling the small coil up as a two
>coil system.
>
>The maggey had 4 foot spark issue at about 1kw.
>
>When setting the system up to couple the small coil as a two coil
>equivalent, we had a real problem in that the small coil arced over its
>entire length until removed to a larger vertical distance. The coupling at
>this point was only .26 overall, but the little resonator still flashed
>occasionally. The spark at the same adjusted power was just over 2' with
>lots of flashing.
>
>We never did another test, as this was more than enough to prove Tesla
>correct. In addition, it vindicated that for a given unit of power, the
>magnifier could indeed produce more spark in the hands of folks who
>understood the geometries required.
>
>Richard Hull, TCBOR
>
>
>